The Little Engine That Could … Commit White Genocide?

Over on Chateau Heartiste, everybody’s favorite pickup-artist-turned-racist-shithead-with-delusions-of-literary-grandeur Heartiste is getting pretty worked up about Confederate statues and, er, high-speed rail.

The Confederate statues being torn down across the South are just the latest battle fronts opened up by shitlibs who obey the credo that a good offense is the best defense. As the shitlib religion sits on a very shaky foundation that the Maul-Right is currently rupturing with seismic waves of realtalk, it behooves shitlibs to press their hate machine forward, into enemy territory bla bla bla blabbity blab blab bloo bloo.

Ok, I got a little bored there, and you probably did too. He finally comes to the point:

The lesson: never give the Left an inch. They’ll take a parsec. Confederate statues today, books authored by White men tomorrow, until it finally reaches end game: second class status for all Whites outside of a few Acela elites who sufficiently grovel at the altar of anti-Whitism.

Acela elites? Acela is a regional “high speed” rail line on the east coast that can only run at top speed on less than 30 miles of track because our rail infrastructure is so crappy. Apparently the people who ride it are all seeekret Soros race-traitor Illuminati who conduct dark anti-white rituals on the train’s altar cars. Who knew?

My parents would say things like, “It might behoove you to start your paper earlier than the night before it is due”.

That’s a reasonable assumption given the context your parents used it in.

It’s a complex word and concept, rolling up the sense of an obligation and the notion of behaviour that is fitting to a person’s station or occupation in life.

Language isn’t, as some believe, prescriptive. Words gain and lose their meanings according to how they are used by everyone, every day, not by how a dictionary defines them. Reading and hearing examples of a word in context can really help to get a feel for complex words.

A longer and maybe less direct synonym would be the phrase ‘reflect well on’.

It would behoove you to study for that test before dinner. // It would reflect well on you to study for that test before dinner.

It does not behoove one to use rare words with the intention to impress. // It does not reflect well on one to use rare words with the intention to impress.

I think it’s reasonable for people to have a negative reaction to ‘behoove’ in particular, because it tends to be used while scolding or instructing someone on the correct way to behave, which is generally not a pleasant experience for the person being scolded. So if that is what someone associates the word with, of course they’ll have a negative impression of it.

And in general, I think it’s very common for people to have been made to feel inadequate, undereducated, ignorant, etc. for not knowing a word. I even remember teachers in my high school having nasty attitudes towards students who didn’t recognize a word they considered to be ‘common’ or ‘easy’. =/

It does not behoove one to use rare words with the intention to impress

Ooh, meta! Love it. 🙂

@ lucrece (my reflection, sorry 80s flashback)

Language isn’t, as some believe, prescriptive. Words gain and lose their meanings according to how they are used by everyone, every day,

It’s interesting in law how some words are ‘frozen’ in the time that a law was passed. So although the everyday meaning is now different we still have to, confusingly, use it in the original sense. For example there are at least three various, and contradictory, meanings of ‘malice’ as it evolved over time.

It’s also handy to refer to people as ‘sophisticated’ when you want to imply they’re a compulsive liar but not get beaten up.

It’s interesting in law how some words are ‘frozen’ in the time that a law was passed.

I work in loan/mortgage servicing and I get to see a lot of legal documents, and it’s been very interesting to learn how to read them for exactly this reason. The definition of a word in a legal document is often not the same definition we would use for that word in regular/modern speech.

And then there’s the world of computer coding, which develops new definitions for words out of necessity…it would behoove me to go assist my coworker, she just said ‘why does this sound like some kind of wizard spell?’ and then read me a mysterious error that had the word ‘invocation’ in it…I think we might need tech support for this one!

I should dress up as a Gothic Lolita, sit behind a desk with a skull on it, and talk about pro-Social Justice causes.

A…a sort of anti-Aurini, if you will.

I love this idea so much.

re “It behoves* X to do Y”
(* behoves in the UK, behooves in the US)
approximately = it is right and fitting for X to do Y/it is incumbent upon X to do Y

(just in case “fitting” or “incumbent” should happen to throw up any useful translation links for Valentine)

Confederation monuments – like our UK monuments to our own historical slavers and race-mass-murderers, I wish these things could be kept in some kind of museum of shame. So we can decry the past without denying the shit that was done; I sometimes feel that simply removing monuments is too good for ’em (or rather, the people concerned, who deserve to be reviled).

These guys should be glad that the descendants of the enslaved aren’t interested in simplistic revenge for past wrongs. But then again, they’re only projecting what THEY would do, so of course one can’t expect any more intelligent reflections from them.

It’s interesting in law how some words are ‘frozen’ in the time that a law was passed

And then there’s the world of computer coding, which develops new definitions for words out of necessity

Sometimes, even picking one widely-known definition of a word causes that confusion. eg. “while”.

In programming, “while [condition] do [action]” means that [action] is taken as long as [condition] is true. But in some UK dialects, “while” is used to mean the same thing as “until” – which, to the programmer, is the exact opposite of “while”.

If that definition becomes the popularly-understood one, then the code will start to look like those laws that use “frozen” versions.

It’s interesting in law how some words are ‘frozen’ in the time that a law was passed. So although the everyday meaning is now different we still have to, confusingly, use it in the original sense. For example there are at least three various, and contradictory, meanings of ‘malice’.

I’d honestly never considered that as the reason for the strangulated and tortuous phrasing of statutes and legal documents, but it makes so much sense!

In that vein, can you illuminate the meaning of the word ‘aggravated’ in the criminal code? As in, ‘aggravated assault’, ‘aggravated burglary’, etc. In common usage, saying something ‘aggravated’ anything seems almost to be a way of minimising its seriousness, but it’s the opposite in law. Just what were they on when they came up with that?

It’s also handy to refer to people as ‘sophisticated’ when you want to imply they’re a compulsive liar but not get beaten up.

LOL! I do a similar trick with things I don’t necessarily like, but which I have to comment on in public for some reason: I call them ‘interesting’. It’s such a great catch-all! No-one can say you’ve said anything negative about the play/movie/opera when you call it interesting plus, it can actually be a positive review. Amongst friends though, if I think something’s shite, I’ll tell them it’s very […significant pause…] “interesting”. Extra sarcasm with your movie review, anyone? 😉

@PreuxFox

I think a more or less direct synonym for ‘behoove’ is ‘befit’.

Ooooh – that’s really quite close! I don’t think they’re exactly the same due to their common usages. As you pointed out, ‘behoves’ somewhat implies a mild reprimand, which isn’t there with ‘befit’. So interesting though! Maybe I’ll ditch my teaching degree and become a lexicographer???

“Behoove” is a strange word; it has specific formats for the positive and negative case that are almost always followed. The positive case is “it behooves you” and the negative case is “it ill behooves you”. The latter is indicative of the archaic style of “behoove”; the use of “ill” as an adverb is sadly disappearing over time.

“Behoove” is a word rich in denotation and connotation. It refers to that which is socially desirable and appropriate; what you should do based on your situation, and based on what’s expected of you. It’s that which is right and proper, and thus it’s a word steeped in social structure (and class roles, which ties back into PoM’s comments), but also in how we present ourselves, and the expectations we create within a given situation or circumstance.

I could accurately say that, because I previously mentioned that I was a linguist and a lover of this specific word, it behooves me to try to define it and provide some context for it. I could also accurately say that it ill behooves me to use such words poorly or inappropriately, for the same reasons.

There’s a pretty close analogue in the French “il faut”, which is usually translated as “it is necessary” but also means “it is proper”. “Behoove” is less mandatory and more judgmental in comparison. You don’t need to do what behooves you, but if you don’t, people will look askance at you and mutter imprecations.

[Sorry, once I started talking about “behoove” it was difficult not to throw in more archaisms. I even removed several! :P]

Heh, I’ll give it a try. But as always with anything legal “it’s complicated”. And please note this is from a Brit-centric perspective.

In law we talk about ‘aggravating’ features (which make an offence more serious) and ‘mitigating’ features (which make an offence less serious)

Sometimes there are specific ‘aggravated’ offences. So for example, over here we have the regular offence of burglary. That’s entering property as a trespasser with an intention to steal, damage, assault, or commit a sexual offence.

But we also have a separate offence of ‘aggravated burglary’. That’s where you do any of the above, but also have a weapon with you.

Similarly, if I nick your car that’s ‘taking without consent’ (or ‘twocking’ as the kids say), but if I then crash it or run someone over that’s ‘aggravated vehicle taking’.

This also comes into play in sentencing. Judges start with a particular sentence in mind, then consider aggravating and mitigating features. Rather confusingly there are ‘statutory’ aggravating features that a judge must take into account and general aggravating features that a judge may take into account.

This is all formalised to an extent nowadays. “Sentencing by fucking spreadsheet” was how one judge friend described it.

Perhaps the best demonstration is to refer you to one of the sentencing guidelines documents that judges here use. You’ll see how the aggravating and mitigating features are dealt with. I’ve chosen the sexual offences guide. I hope that isn’t too triggering for anyone. But I know some people here a have an interest in this area so I thought I could kill two birds with one stone.

As for the etymology, aggravate comes from the Latin for ‘heavy’ and that evolved to mean ‘more serious’ by way of metaphor. It’s like how we say “you don’t appreciate the gravity of the situation” (which comes from the same root).

Does the British criminal code make a huge effing deal about “cattle”? I ask because the Criminal Code of Canada, which is obviously based on British criminal law, uses the word approximately one bazillion times. There are separate offences to do with cattle. There are more severe sentencing guidelines if the offence involved cattle. You’re left to wonder why the Code is so damned obsessed with cows in particular over every other living thing on the planet. And then you learn that the definition of “cattle” they’re using includes goats, sheep, horses, etc.

A friend took the Washington State Bar exam and every question was about logging.

But yeah, we’re not quite as obsessed, but there are a lot of cases. The ‘cattle = everything’ cropped up once in a case I had about whether you could be charged for being drunk in charge of a cow (you definitely can for horses).

Got to love the irregular and odd, like cleave. How satisfying is it that you can cleave to someone or cleave something in two (and how nice that an anthropomorphic figure could quite happily have both a cleft chin and cloven hooves. It probably behooves (or behoves) it to have ’em)

I used to roleplay with people who would type things as long as that for their responses(called poses, in the particular jargon used for the sort of games where this sort of RP occured).

I presume you mean MUDs/MUCKs/MUSHes, that sort of thing? That’s the main place I know where ‘pose’ is used for an action like that.

It can be a bit of a balancing act. Too little description, and the person on the other end thinks you’re not really into this. Too much, and you start to sound a bit self-absorbed. Or trying to over-control what’s happening.

@Francesca:
Yes, somewhat. They may be relatively obscure now, at least. They were less so when I started.

I’ll date myself by noting that my first MUD was Islandia. (I joined in March of 1990.) I remember when they had to start deleting things because the database at the time had a fixed limit of 65533 actual objects in it. I have a character on another (still-running) MUCK where I don’t actually know when the character was created, because ‘object creation times’ weren’t added to the database until some months afterward (in 1991). So what is listed as my character creation time is actually the time when they added object creation times to the code.

… I just realized I’ve been involved with some of this for over half my life now.

You may indeed. Yes, but on pretty weird grounds. It all hinged on whether the top speed of the buggy was 4mph (in which case it transpires it’s not a motor vehicle) or 8mph (in which case it is a motor vehicle). Over here anything less than 4mph counts as a motorised wheelchair so you can use it on the pavement.

As it happened this particular buggy had a switch so you could set the top speed at either. Luckily my guy had been too pissed to remember what setting he was on and the police had been too busy rescuing him from the ditch to notice (assuming it even crossed their minds).

The CPS weren’t that bothered about potting him (for the reasons you mention), so they were glad of the excuse to drop the case.

Funnily enough he could have been done under the same old law (from 1872) that made drunk in charge of cow an offence. That also mentions ‘carriage’ and was later used to successfully prosecute some drunken idiot on a golf cart.

Funnily enough he could have been done under the same old law (from 1872) that made drunk in charge of cow an offence. That also mentions ‘carriage’ and was later used to successfully prosecute some drunken idiot on a golf cart.

It’s not unusual to creatively use laws to get at people who tries to creatively circumvent drunk driving laws. Here in Sweden there’s a lot of people who choose to bike when going out for drinks, rather than illegally drive cars, and biking while blotto is not illegal, although the police can stop you from biking if you’re too erratic.
Curiously, though, you can lose your driver’s licence for it. That’s not specific to biking, though, since you can lose it for being drunk on foot. The fact of which came to wider attention when a small-time politician complained to media about having his licence pulled for drunk walking. And one wonders why he felt it was a good idea to tell the world that the police were so god-damned tired of him blindly zig-zagging across the town square that they did this.

Thanks for that, it’s really interesting. I love a bit of comparative jurisprudence. Funny about the license thing. Over here you can only get points or lose your licence for very specific drunk driving things. So under that old act you can be fined or imprisoned, but it wouldn’t affect your licence.

@Lucrece, @Axe @other behoove-friends I haven’t come across yet in the thread

Count me in. I’m careful about how I use “behoove”, though; like “whom”, it can alienate a listener fast. But it’s a joy to use in the right circles.

To me it always seemed to be related to the word “behave”. One behaves as one is behooved, or something. (I probably got that latter tense all screwed up, but I don’t know how to fix it.) Anyway, the two words probably have nothing to do with each other.

I don’t use it to sound smart but because it has a specific meaning that I want to indicate at the time, so there is that difference between me and the jerks.

This. There is a difference between using words that you know the meaning of because it’s the right word, and using words that you don’t really know the meaning of because you think it will make you sound smarter. (General you throughout).

@Collateral Thought

The easy way to check is to replace it with “he” and “him”. If “he” fits there, then it’s “who”. If “him” fits there, then it’s “whom”.

Thank you! I’ll have to remember that, it’s a nice straightforward way of remembering the difference.

Lucrece – I too was noted for my extensive vocabulary from a very early age. Part of it was my experience as a stammerer who, with the aid of speech therapy, became fluent. I also grew up in a reading family; I would routinely entertain myself after dinner by reading from the encyclopedia. I have joked that my vocabulary is what can happen when you’re on the spectrum and can’t do math.

Certain writers, such as Clark Ashton Smith, whose fiction glistened with recondite phraseology and archaic terminology, thrilled me with their fireworks of prose.

Regarding the ‘b’ word, Saturday Night Live had a mock PSA in ’76 for the National Uvula Association, with the slogan “It’ll behoove ya to care for your uvula!”.

We Hunted the Mammoth tracks and mocks the white male rage underlying the rise of Trump and Trumpism. This blog is NOT a safe space; given the subject matter -- misogyny and hate -- there's really no way it could be.